Case C-466/06: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Nanterre (France)) — Société Roquette Frères v Direction Générale des Douanes et Droits Indirects, Recette Principale de Gennevilliers de la Direction Générale des Douanes et des Droits Indirects (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector — Isoglucose — Setting of basic quantities for the allocation of production quotas — Isoglucose produced as an intermediate product — Article 24(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 — Article 27(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2038/1999 — Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 2073/2000 — Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 — Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1745/2002 — Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1739/2003 — Production levies — Detailed rules for the application of the quota system — Account taken of the quantities of sugar in processed products — Determination of the exportable surplus — Determination of average loss)
Date: 2008-10-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: common organisation of markets, interpretation of the law, isoglucose, production quota, sugar

C 327/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.12.2008

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of 27 June 2007 of the Court of First
in Kingdom of

European Communities

Instance
the Netherlands v Commission (T-182/06);

the

of

2. Annuls Commission Decision 2006/372/EC of 3 May 2006
concerning draft national provisions notified by the Kingdom of the
Netherlands under Article 95(5) EC laying down limits on the
emissions of particulate matter by diesel-powered vehicles;

1. declares that by not putting in place the authorities able to verify
the implementation of the principles of good laboratory practice,
the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations
the European
under Article 3 of Directive 2004/9/EC of
Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on the inspec-
tion and verification of good laboratory practice (GLP);

2. orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

3. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the

costs.

(1) OJ C 116 of 9.5.2008.

(1) OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 November
the European Communities v
2008 — Commission of

Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 October 2008
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
Grande Instance de Nanterre (France)) — Société Roquette
Frères v Direction Générale des Douanes et Droits
la
Indirects, Recette Principale de Gennevilliers de

Direction Générale des Douanes et des Droits Indirects

(Case C-95/08) (1)

(Case C-466/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive
2004/9/EC — Failure to designate the authorities responsible
for the inspection of laboratories and for the audit of studies
carried out by laboratories to assess compliance with the prin-
ciples of good laboratory practice)

(2008/C 327/09)

Language of the case: French

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Common organi-
sation of the markets in the sugar sector — Isoglucose —
Setting of basic quantities for the allocation of production
quotas — Isoglucose produced as an intermediate product —
Article 24(2)
of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 —
Article 27(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2038/1999 — Article 1
of Regulation (EC) No 2073/2000 — Article 11(2) of Regu-
lation (EC) No 1260/2001 — Article 1 of Regulation (EC)
No 1745/2002 — Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1739/2003
— Production levies — Detailed rules for the application of
the quota system — Account taken of the quantities of sugar
in processed products — Determination of the exportable
surplus — Determination of average loss)

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: G. Rozet and P. Oliver, acting as Agents)

(2008/C 327/10)

Language of the case: French

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C.
Schiltz, acting as Agent)

Referring court

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive
2004/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
11 February 2004 on the inspection and verification of good
laboratory practice (GLP) (OJ 2004 L 50, p. 28) — Failure to
the inspection of
designate the authorities responsible for
laboratories and for the audit of studies carried out by labora-
tories to assess compliance with the principles of good labora-
tory practice

Tribunal de Grande Instance de Nanterre

Parties

Applicant: Société Roquette Frères

Defendant: Direction Générale des Douanes et Droits Indirects,
Recette Principale de Gennevilliers de la Direction Générale des
Douanes et des Droits Indirects

20.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 327/7

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de Grande
Instance de Nanterre — Validity of Article 24(2) of Regulation
(EEC) No 1758/81, Article 27(3)
of Regulation (EC)
No 2038/1999, Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 2073/2000,
Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1745/2002 and Article 1 of
Regulation (EC) No 1739/2003 — Common organisation of
the markets in the sugar sector — Isoglucose production quotas
— (Non)
isoglucose used as an intermediate
product — Validity of Regulation (EEC) No 1443/82 and Regu-
lation (EC) No 314/2002 — Method of calculating levies due in
respect of isoglucose production

inclusion of

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di
Treviso (Italy)
lodged on 18 August 2008 — Criminal
proceedings against Luigi Pontini, Emanuele Rech, Dino
Bonora, Giovanni Forato, Laura Forato, Adele Adami, Ivo
Colomberotto

(Case C-375/08)

(2008/C 327/11)

Language of the case: Italian

Operative part of the order

1. Consideration of the first question referred has disclosed no factor of
such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 24(2) of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 on the common
organization of the markets in the sugar sector, Article 27(3) of
Council Regulation (EC) No 2038/1999 of 13 September 1999
on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector,
Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2000 of
29 September 2000 reducing, for the 2000/2001 marketing year,
the guaranteed quantity under the production quotas scheme for the
sugar sector and the presumed maximum supply needs of sugar refi-
neries under the preferential import arrangements, Article 11(2) of
Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the
common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector, Article 1
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1745/2002 of 30 September
2002 reducing, for the 2002/2003 marketing year, the guaran-
teed quantity under the production quotas scheme for the sugar
sector and the presumed maximum supply needs of sugar refineries
under
import arrangements or Article 1 of
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1739/2003 of 30 September
2003 reducing, for the 2003/2004 marketing year, the guaran-
teed quantity under the production quotas for the sugar sector and
refineries under
the presumed maximum supply needs of sugar
preferential imports.

the preferential

2. Consideration of the first subparagraph of Article 5(5) of Commis-
sion Regulation (EEC) No 1443/82 of 8 June 1982 laying down
detailed rules for the application of the quota system in the sugar
sector, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 392/94 of
23 February 1994, and Article 6(4) of Commission Regulation
(EC) No 314/2002 of 20 February 2002 laying down detailed
rules for the application of the quota system in the sugar sector, as
amended, where appropriate, by Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1140/2003 of 27 June 2003 has disclosed no factor of such
a kind as to affect the validity of those provisions.

(1) OJ C 154, 1.7.2006.

Referring court

Tribunale di Treviso

Parties to the main proceedings

Luigi Pontini, Emanuele Rech, Dino Bonora, Giovanni Forato,
Laura Forato, Adele Adami, Ivo Colomberotto

Question referred

The Tribunale makes a reference to the Court of Justice in order
that the latter may make clear what the conditions are for elig-
ibility for premiums for male bovine animals and, in particular,
whether the requirement of use of forage areas is sufficient, irre-
spective of the existence of any valid legal title to make that use
lawful (1).

(1) OJ L 160, p. 21.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged
on 18 August 2008 — Serrantoni Srl and Consorzio
Stabile Edile Scrl v Comune di Milano

(Case C-376/08)

(2008/C 327/12)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia